Randhi Appalaswami vs Randhi Suryanarayanamurti on 2 July, 1947
In Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurti and Ors. I.L.R. 1948 Mad. 440 : (1947)2 M.L.J. 138. A.I.R. 1947 RC. 189, their Lordships have said thus:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango vs Narayan Devji Kango And Others on 23 March, 1954
In Srinivas Krishnarao Kongo v. Marayan Devji Kongo and Ors. . Their Lordships have taken into consideration the decision cited supra. In that case, the family had nucleus. It was in the nature of a building and land around the same. The question that came for consideration was, whether that was sufficient nucleus. While considering the same, Their Lordships held thus : (Headnote 'a')
Proof of the evidence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property was joint to establish the fact. But where it is established that the family possessed some joint property which from its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the property in question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property. A.I.R. 1947 Cal.
Mst. Rukhmabai vs Lala Laxminarayan And Others on 17 November, 1959
In Rukhmabai v. Laxminarayan . it was held thus:
Baikuntha Nath Paramanik (Dead) By His ... vs Sashi Bhusan Pramanik (Dead) By His ... on 9 August, 1972
In Baikuntha Nath Pramanik v. Sashi Bhusan Pramanik (1972)2 S.C.W.R. 406. it was held thus:
Ratanchand Darbarilal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, M.P. on 16 August, 1985
In Ratanchand Darbarilal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, M.R . the question that came for consideration was, whether some members of an undivided family by themselves can form a partnership. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that without a partition or partial partition, some members alone cannot form a partnership firm. Setting aside the finding, in paragraph 6 of the judgment (at page 1575) Their Lordships said thus:
1